(even as ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" exposes ploy's premise as false)
|
G. K. Chesterton
While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.
Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.
This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)
Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.
But it did not.
(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)
This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.
The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
|
||
|
OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK (with additions, corrections, addendum)
It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?)
While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack.
Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.
You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)
In your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:
On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?
The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)
And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.
Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.
I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher.
Sincerely,
P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me.
As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.
This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)
Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.
But it did not.
(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)
This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.
The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. |
THIS CAN'T BE SUSAN ESTRICH. THEY MUST HAVE SEWN ON A NEW MOUTH FIVE TIMES SMALLER.
